CHAPTER XXX.

ANATOMICAL CHARACTERS.

I. Osteological characters. Without denying the very great value of external characters, I agree with almost all anthropologists, in attaching a greater importance to anatomical characters in the majority of cases. Unfortunately, the comparative anatomy of human races has, as yet, made but little progress. The fact is, that the solid portions, the skeleton alone, have, necessarily, been the subject of serious examination. The study of the perishable portion has scarcely been begun. For this, and several other reasons, I shall distinguish these two orders of facts, and discuss separately our knowledge of osteological characters and organic characters.

The skeleton, the framework of the body, presents the same regions as the latter: we can distinguish the head, the trunk, and the extremities. Each of these regions offers peculiarities more or less connected with the diversity of human groups. The best studied, and fortunately the most important, are furnished by the head. For some years craniological collections have been singularly on the increase; and throughout Europe, the study has been entered upon with equal ardour. Craniometrical methods and instruments have multiplied, perhaps a little beyond the actual need. MM. Vogt and Topinard have made an excellent summary of this mass of research. I can only refer to their publications. I cannot here even reproduce all the results already acquired, and must confine myself to pointing out a few of the principal ones.

II. Characters drawn from the cranium alone.-From`an anthropological point of view, as well as in an anatomical sense, the skull is divided into two parts, the cranium and the face. Each of these regions has its special indications, while new characters again rise from their reciprocal relations. Let us briefly review them.

The general form of the cranium depends, above all, upon the relation existing between the length measured from before backwards, and the breadth taken from one side to the other. The honour of having appreciated the importance of this relation belongs to Retzius. He made use of it to establish the distinction between dolichocephalic, or longheaded races, and brachycephalic, or short-headed races.

Retzius considered the relations 7: 9 or 8: 10 as representing the limit, left by him uncertain, of dolichocephaly and brachycephaly. M. Broca proposed the formation of a third group, which should comprise all crania, the length and breadth of which presented a relation comprised within these limits, and anthropologists now admit with him the mesaticephalic races. In expressing these relations by decimals, and in creating the term horizontal cephalic index, now universally adopted, M. Broca has, moreover, facilitated, to an extraordinary degree, the study of this character, and the ideas to which it may give birth. His subdivision of the two extreme groups into two has also, in certain cases, been an advantage. He has himself, however, shown that it is not wise to go too far in this direction.

The definitions of dolichocephaly, mesaticephaly, and brachycephaly have, it seems to me, been somewhat arbitrary. I draw this conclusion from the following tables, which I borrow from MM. Broca and Pruner Bey. They represent the means discovered by these eminent investigators. I have merely substituted the serial order for the purely geographical distribution adopted by M. Pruner. Moreover, I have continued the calculation to the second decimal place, thus rendering the distinctions more minute, and the general result more striking.

These tables mutually confirm and complete each other in general results. The secondary differences which distinguish them, are doubtless occasioned, on the one hand, by the number of crania employed by the two authors to obtain their means; on the other, from some diversity in the use of these materials. M. Pruner Bey distinguished the sexes, which are united by M. Broca: the latter has placed in one group the Hottentots and Bosjesmans, separated by M. Pruner, etc.

From M. Broca's table it appears that the mean of all these indices, leaving deformed skulls out of the question, is 0.78. From a numerical point of view this would be that of true mesaticephaly. The mean group ought, it seems to me, to descend equally as it rises, and consequently to absorb at least a part of M. Broca's sub-dolichocephali. In fact, upon inspecting the two tables, it appears that the indices above 0.74 and below 079 comprise the greater number of races belonging to the three fundamental types, and taken from all

parts of the world. It seems to me that true mesaticephaly should be comprised within these limits. I do not, however, propose that those which have been adopted should be changed.

These tables give rise to many other observations, of which I shall only point out the principal.

M. Pruner Bey carried his calculations to the third place of decimals; M. Broca to the fourth. I have gone no further than the second, that the eye may be more easily attracted by the series formed by these numbers, so important in the characterization of races. It should be remembered that the greater number are means taken from a certain number of crania. Were there a sufficient number of subjects for each race, and all the indices taken from each arranged in serial order, the distance from one to the other would undoubtedly be no longer 001, but would be diminished to 0001, or even less. The insensible shades observed in passing from one individual to another would here be as remarkable as in the comparison of stature.

We see

There is no need to insist at any length upon the intercrossing, so strikingly betrayed by the two tables. that the same index places side by side the most dissimilar races, the South German with the Annamite, the Breton with the Kalmuck, the Belgian with the Tagal, the Parisian with the Malay, the Italian with the Maori, etc., and that by their several indices the white races are scattered throughout almost all the coloured races. I need not return to the consequences which may be drawn from these facts from a monogenistic point of view.

The yellow and black races are not so widely separated as the white; the former are either brachycephalic or mesaticephalic, the latter all dolichocephalic, with the exception of the Aetas. I have shown that the latter belong to a group of populations extending from the Andaman and Philippine Islands to Torres Strait in Melanesia, penetrating New Guinea, and forming a special branch in the midst of the Melanesian Negro population.